However, what comes next is the rub. If our theological/hermeneutical
opinion is decisive then we should seek to develop a unified
perspective on life and knowledge based on the decisive view point.
If the Bible demands YEC, what implications does that have for the
rest of life? Isn't that a fair question? Are YEC obligated to
develop a world and life view that is based on their theological
perspective? Is it possible that such a commitment may put them at
significant odds with a world that builds a world and life view on
something else.

I even admit that there is something unsettling about my own
"resolution" of the human evolution/creation of Adam problem--"I
don't know!" Saying that I can't solve the problem, says, among other
things, that I'm unwilling to let my theological/hermeneutical
conclusion about Adam to be decisive in my broader "unified
perspective on life and knowledge". While there's a certain integrity
that I claim here in that I believe that my positions come from a
right understanding of scripture and creation and that I'm unwilling
to twist scripture or creation to make things fit, the fact that I
end up with an unresolvable problem may be a clue that I've got
something wrong.

Perhaps one contribution the ASA can make here is to help YEC's make
the best case they can make. Should we help them develop a "unified
perspective on life and knowledge" that flows out of their
theological commitments and that does not include bogus scientific
claims? In critiquing bad science we do this in part. And in pointing
out useless and tired rhetoric we do this. It does seems to me
however, that we have a tendency to malign them inappropriately given
their common faith with us.

"Unfortunately", we have public schools and public churches. Once
again, I think it might behoove us to reflect more deeply on notions
of pluralism both within and outside of the Christian community.

TG

On May 11, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Ted Davis wrote:

>>>> "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> 05/11/07 1:22 PM
>>>> >>>writes,
> among other things, the following:
>
> However, for Christians who interpret the Bible otherwise, submission
> to the authority of scripture requires them to admit that the
> something is wrong with the science. They may not be able to pinpoint
> it--it may in fact be "appearance of age" (I think we vastly overly
> demonize this viewpoint--how old was the wine that Jesus created at
> Cana?). This is not to say that we should tolerate bad scientific
> arguments for YEC.
>
> Ted replies:
> IMO, it does not violate a commitment to scientific integrity, to
> say that
> the earth looks old but is really young, on the basis of biblical
> hermeneutics. The "appearance of age" position has a legion of
> problems
> that I won't rehash here, but it does not deny that the scientific
> conclusions are what they are. If the earth "appears" old, that is
> consistent with saying that the scientific evidence leads to that
> conclusion. If the Bible requires a young earth, that's not a
> matter of
> scientific integrity; it's a theological/hermeneutical opinion.
> And, if it
> is maintained alongside the admission that the earth does in fact
> "look
> old", it doesn't misrepresent the relevant science.
>
> ted
>